[Howlin]

Are you denying you linked that web site and then said:

"I'd say this site pretty much exhausts any possible critical examination of the Bush administration from a conservative Christian standpoint: BushRevealed.com. It's a very conservative no-compromise Christian political site. And people around here think some of us FReepers are tough. "

That's a big old endorsement!

[OWK]

That's a big old endorsement!

Then by all means Madame Inquisitor... put him on the rack to confess his sins...

[George W. Bush]

That's a big old endorsement!

Only in your fevered imagination. I described them as 'no-compromise'. And I distanced myself from their views in several ways, such as 'And people around here think some of us FReepers are tough.'. So I clearly do not endorse everything they say. I do think they overstate the case. I doubt we have the luxury of voting for purely Christian candidates.

You really should stop putting whiskey on your Cheerios. Stick with milk.

[Sabertooth]

*Are you denying you linked that web site and then said:

**"I'd say this site pretty much exhausts any possible critical examination of the Bush administration from a conservative Christian standpoint: BushRevealed.com. It's a very conservative no-compromise Christian political site. And people around here think some of us FReepers are tough. "

*That's a big old endorsement!

It's kinda not smart to be so obviously dishonest, since the very next two sentences after that "big old endorsement" are the following disclaimers:

"I would say that I don't take their every argument seriously. They have some tinfoil material."

Here's the whole post...

---

To: kuma

I could give you a list but there's a site someone posted on this topic. They go into in more detail.

You should go look at it and decide the merits for yourself. I'd say this site pretty much exhausts any possible critical examination of the Bush administration from a conservative Christian standpoint: BushRevealed.com. It's a very conservative no-compromise Christian political site. And people around here think some of us FReepers are tough.

I would say that I don't take their every argument seriously. They have some tinfoil material. And we didn't elect him to establish a Christian theocracy. I do wish that if he's going to quote the Bible, he'd try to read the rest of the Good Book and get to the New Testament. Still, worlds better than any Dim on Christianity. He's big on the Judeo-Christian scripture, I guess. Well, the Judeo part anyway. More disturbing to me is his calling Islam "The Religion Of Peace". I wish he'd call us Christians that just once.

Oh, well, maybe he'll have time to discover the New Testament in his second term. Heh-heh. We have to be optimistic.

Bush is quite adequate as CIC aside from some minor WMD/intel quibbling that'll drag out until at least November. He seems to put a real snap into the troops. Besides, it's a little late to hand Iraq back to the Baathists at this point. I don't see how Kerry can possibly compete with Bush in the CIC role, especially given his record of votes and speeches on defense, intel, United Nations.

I'm not trying to steer you one way or the other. Given your two major criteria, you may need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Or look at ways to elect more conservative congressmen to help him govern better.

289 posted on 02/11/2004 7:14:00 PM PST by George W. Bush (It's the Congress, stupid.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

But then, I'm obviously not accusing you of being smart or honest.

[OWK]

That (post 539) was a repost on the post you excised and called an endorsement?

Geez...

How fundamentally dishonest are you willing to be to score a cheap point...?

That's really sad.